Concurrence of rule- and similarity-based mechanisms in artificial grammar learning

A current theoretical debate regards whether rule-based or similarity-based learning prevails during artificial grammar learning (AGL). Although the majority of findings are consistent with a similarity-based account of AGL it has been argued that these results were obtained only after limited exposure to study exemplars, and performance on subsequent grammaticality judgment tests has often been barely above chance level. In three experiments the conditions were investigated under which rule- and similarity-based learning could be applied. Participants were exposed to exemplars of an artificial grammar under different (implicit and explicit) learning instructions. The analysis of receiver operating characteristics (ROC) during a final grammaticality judgment test revealed that explicit but not implicit learning led to rule knowledge. It also demonstrated that this knowledge base is built up gradually while similarity knowledge governed the initial state of learning. Together these results indicate that rule- and similarity-based mechanisms concur during AGL. Moreover, it could be speculated that two different rule processes might operate in parallel; bottom-up learning via gradual rule extraction and top-down learning via rule testing. Crucially, the latter is facilitated by performance feedback that encourages explicit hypothesis testing.

[1]  Richard J Tunney,et al.  Similarity and confidence in artificial grammar learning. , 2010, Experimental psychology.

[2]  Pienie Zwitserlood,et al.  Syntactic structure and artificial grammar learning: The learnability of embedded hierarchical structures , 2008, Cognition.

[3]  John R. Vokey,et al.  Abstract analogies and abstracted grammars: Comments on Reber and Mathews et al. , 1991 .

[4]  T. Nokes,et al.  Investigating the Role of Instructional Focus in Incidental Pattern Learning , 2009, The Journal of general psychology.

[5]  Karl J. Friston,et al.  Learning-related neuronal responses in prefrontal cortex studied with functional neuroimaging. , 1999, Cerebral cortex.

[6]  Anja Lotz,et al.  Classification and recognition in artificial grammar learning: Analysis of receiver operating characteristics , 2006, Quarterly journal of experimental psychology.

[7]  D Broadbent,et al.  Implicit and explicit knowledge bases in artificial grammar learning. , 1991, Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition.

[8]  Xi Zhang,et al.  The interaction of implicit learning, explicit hypothesis testing learning and implicit-to-explicit knowledge extraction , 2007, Neural Networks.

[9]  R. Sun,et al.  The interaction of the explicit and the implicit in skill learning: a dual-process approach. , 2005, Psychological review.

[10]  R. Schvaneveldt,et al.  The basis of transfer in artificial grammar learning , 2000, Memory & cognition.

[11]  A. Reber Transfer of syntactic structure in synthetic languages. , 1969 .

[12]  Xi Zhang,et al.  Top-down versus bottom-up learning in cognitive skill acquisition , 2004, Cognitive Systems Research.

[13]  Philip A. Higham,et al.  Opposition logic and neural network models in artificial grammar learning , 2004, Consciousness and Cognition.

[14]  Guillén Fernández,et al.  Neural correlates of artificial syntactic structure classification , 2006, NeuroImage.

[15]  A. Yonelinas Receiver-operating characteristics in recognition memory: evidence for a dual-process model. , 1994, Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition.

[16]  B. Ross Distinguishing Types of Superficial Similarities: Different Effects on the Access and Use of Earlier Problems , 1989 .

[17]  A. Friederici,et al.  Neural basis of processing sequential and hierarchical syntactic structures , 2007, Human brain mapping.

[18]  A. Reber Implicit learning of artificial grammars , 1967 .

[19]  Angela D. Friederici,et al.  Hierarchical artificial grammar processing engages Broca's area , 2008, NeuroImage.

[20]  A. Reber Implicit learning of synthetic languages: The role of instructional set. , 1976 .

[21]  M. Linden,et al.  Associative chunk strength in artificial grammar learning. , 1997 .

[22]  Todd M. Bailey,et al.  The role of similarity in artificial grammar learning. , 2000, Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition.

[23]  Pierre Perruchet,et al.  Synthetic grammar learning: Implicit rule abstraction or explicit fragmentary knowledge? Journal of , 1990 .

[24]  D. Broadbent,et al.  On the Relationship between Task Performance and Associated Verbalizable Knowledge , 1984 .

[25]  A. Rey,et al.  Does the mastery of center-embedded linguistic structures distinguish humans from nonhuman primates? , 2005, Psychonomic bulletin & review.

[26]  David L. Faigman,et al.  Human category learning. , 2005, Annual review of psychology.

[27]  Ron Sun,et al.  Robust Reasoning: Integrating Rule-Based and Similarity-Based Reasoning , 1995, Artif. Intell..

[28]  Bertram Opitz,et al.  Interactions of the hippocampal system and the prefrontal cortex in learning language-like rules , 2003, NeuroImage.

[29]  A. Reber Implicit learning and tacit knowledge , 1993 .

[30]  S. Kotz,et al.  Ventral Premotor Cortex Lesions disrupt learning of sequential syntactic structures , 2009 .

[31]  L. Squire,et al.  Artificial grammar learning depends on implicit acquisition of both abstract and exemplar-specific information. , 1996, Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition.

[32]  Gregory Ashby,et al.  A neuropsychological theory of multiple systems in category learning. , 1998, Psychological review.

[33]  J. R. Vokey,et al.  Abstract analogies and positive transfer in artificial grammar learning. , 2005, Canadian journal of experimental psychology = Revue canadienne de psychologie experimentale.

[34]  Angela D. Friederici,et al.  Artificial grammar learning meets formal language theory: an overview , 2012, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences.

[35]  John R. Vokey,et al.  Salience of Item Knowledge in Learning Artificial Grammars , 1992 .

[36]  Roger W. Schvaneveldt,et al.  What Is Learned From Artificial Grammars? Transfer Tests of Simple Association , 1994 .

[37]  J. R. Vokey,et al.  Beyond dissociation logic: evidence for controlled and automatic influences in artificial grammar learning. , 2000, Journal of experimental psychology. General.

[38]  R. Mathews,et al.  Role of Implicit and Explicit Processes in Learning From Examples: A Synergistic Effect , 1989 .

[39]  Edward E. Smith,et al.  The Case for Rules in Reasoning , 1992, Cogn. Sci..

[40]  Harald Lachnit,et al.  Multiple Regression Analyses in Artificial-Grammar Learning: The Importance of Control Groups , 2009, Quarterly journal of experimental psychology.

[41]  Bertram Opitz,et al.  Does It Really Matter? Separating the Effects of Musical Training on Syntax Acquisition , 2012, Front. Psychology.

[42]  R. A. Carlson,et al.  A case of syntactical learning and judgment: How conscious and how abstract? , 1984 .

[43]  R. Mathews,et al.  Role of Implicit and Explicit Processes in Learning From Examples : A Synergistic Effect , 2004 .

[44]  N. Chater,et al.  Similarity and rules: distinct? exhaustive? empirically distinguishable? , 1998, Cognition.

[45]  Annette Kinder,et al.  Connectionist models of artificial grammar learning: what type of knowledge is acquired? , 2009, Psychological research.

[46]  Axel Cleeremans,et al.  Implicit Learning and Consciousness: An Empirical , 2002 .

[47]  Bill Sallas,et al.  Developing rich and quickly accessed knowledge of an artificial grammar , 2007, Memory & cognition.

[48]  E. Pothos Theories of artificial grammar learning. , 2007, Psychological bulletin.

[49]  Randall K. Jamieson,et al.  Applying an Exemplar Model to the Artificial-Grammar Task: Inferring Grammaticality from Similarity , 2009, Quarterly journal of experimental psychology.

[50]  Ron Sun,et al.  Effects of model-based and memory-based processing on speed and accuracy of grammar string generation. , 2004, Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition.

[51]  John R. Vokey,et al.  Abstract analogies and abstracted grammars: Comments on Reber (1989) and Mathews et al. (1989). , 1991 .

[52]  John R. Anderson,et al.  Learning Artificial Grammars With Competitive Chunking , 1990 .

[53]  A. Friederici,et al.  Brain Correlates of Language Learning: The Neuronal Dissociation of Rule-Based versus Similarity-Based Learning , 2004, The Journal of Neuroscience.

[54]  E. Pothos The rules versus similarity distinction. , 2005, The Behavioral and brain sciences.

[55]  Jacques Mehler,et al.  The role of salience in the extraction of algebraic rules. , 2005, Journal of experimental psychology. General.

[56]  Seth J. Ramus,et al.  Intact Artificial Grammar Learning in Amnesia: Dissociation of Classification Learning and Explicit Memory for Specific Instances , 1992 .

[57]  D. M. Green,et al.  Signal detection theory and psychophysics , 1966 .

[58]  The transfer effect in artificial grammar learning: Reappraising the evidence on the transfer of sequential dependencies. , 1999 .

[59]  L R Brooks,et al.  Fragmentary knowledge and the processing-specific control of structural sensitivity. , 1994, Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition.

[60]  Nick Chater,et al.  Knowledge Representation and Transfer in Artificial Grammar Learning , 2002 .

[61]  J. Kruschke,et al.  Rules and exemplars in category learning. , 1998, Journal of experimental psychology. General.

[62]  R. Menzel Learning, Memory, and Cognition: Animal Perspectives , 2013 .

[63]  R. Gómez,et al.  Infant artificial language learning and language acquisition , 2000, Trends in Cognitive Sciences.

[64]  Corey J. Bohil,et al.  Delayed feedback effects on rule-based and information-integration category learning. , 2003, Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition.

[65]  W. Fitch,et al.  Computational Constraints on Syntactic Processing in a Nonhuman Primate , 2004, Science.

[66]  Karsten Steinhauer,et al.  Brain signatures of artificial language processing: Evidence challenging the critical period hypothesis , 2002, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[67]  Ron Sun,et al.  From implicit skills to explicit knowledge: a bottom-up model of skill learning , 2001, Cogn. Sci..

[68]  Bertram Opitz,et al.  Rule and similarity in grammar: Their interplay and individual differences in the brain , 2012, NeuroImage.

[69]  L R Squire,et al.  The information acquired during artificial grammar learning. , 1994, Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition.

[70]  Peter M. Vishton,et al.  Rule learning by seven-month-old infants. , 1999, Science.

[71]  F. Ashby,et al.  Category learning and multiple memory systems , 2005, Trends in Cognitive Sciences.

[72]  Fenna H. Poletiek,et al.  Intentional artificial grammar learning: When does it work? , 2008 .

[73]  Z. Dienes,et al.  Implicit learning: Below the subjective threshold , 1997 .

[74]  Fenna H. Poletiek,et al.  What in the World Makes Recursion so Easy to Learn? A Statistical Account of the Staged Input Effect on Learning a Center-Embedded Structure in Artificial Grammar Learning (AGL) , 2011, Biolinguistics.

[75]  Gary Cantor,et al.  On the Relationship Between Implicit and Explicit Modes in the Learning of a Complex Rule Structure , 1980 .

[76]  Jun Lai,et al.  The impact of adjacent-dependencies and staged-input on the learnability of center-embedded hierarchical structures , 2011, Cognition.

[77]  J. C. Ogilvie,et al.  Maximum-likelihood estimation of receiver operating characteristic curve parameters , 1968 .

[78]  B. Ross,et al.  Generalizing from the use of earlier examples in problem solving , 1990 .

[79]  R. Tunney,et al.  Two modes of transfer in artificial grammar learning. , 2001, Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition.

[80]  Bertram Opitz,et al.  Neural binding mechanisms in learning and memory , 2010, Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews.

[81]  A. Kinder,et al.  Learning artificial grammars: No evidence for the acquisition of rules , 2000, Memory & cognition.